Our cooling world

[waldo]

you're visibly upset.

no wonder you could never muster together a scientific discussion with petros.

we understand. :lol:

are you the dancingMan's agent? Again, thank you for your Locutus Brand™ of moderation

says you... the guy whose complete act is to prowl denier blogs, come back with your C&P gems... and not say a single damn word of your own! You, the guy who actually believes charlatans like bloggers "Goddard, Tisdale, Homewood, Briggs, etc", are actually scientists!!! :mrgreen: There is no discussion to be had with the imbecilic dancingMan!

here's a clue for you, Locutus... no matter how hard you try, the BROs won't let you into their clubhouse! You're management! :mrgreen:

I see zipper would rather have waldo dance for him than answering the question.

again, you showed your ignorance in not knowing what the consensus actually is... I say ignorance, because you blasted forward with your "bullshyte" call without having a clue what you were calling bullshyte on! And again, there's no dance here... other than yours! Again, I put forward a detailed account of what the consensus actually is. Of course, you chose to completely ignore it; instead, you keep coming back further showcasing your big-time fail!

Leaving waldo and his imaginary friend to make 97% between them. Coincidently the sum of their IQs.

drive-by arteeest!... that's quite the zinger! Your intellect ON DISPLAY!

 

[taxslave]

Making little worms like you twist is kinda a hobby of mine... I consider it as my service to the public in that I keep tards like you off the street where you might run out in front of a bus whilst chasing a butterfly or whatnot

Mostly their severe case of Asburgers(sp?) keeps them off the streets.

 

[waldo]

Looked in a mirror have you? Perhaps, with a bit of luck when you reach adulthood you will understand that there is more to a discussion than C&P from dubious sources.

what hood are you an adult in? Perhaps Locutus can tell us! :mrgreen: You're probably the last person on this board to call out anyone's posting... hey lil' buddy! You know, your forevah "I don't have to support nuthin... I won't reinvent the wheel for you... it's all been said in previous CC threads/posts, so I have no onus on me to substantiate anything!"

 

[petros]

I love you waldo.

 

[gerryh]

His foot work is simply amazing, isn't it.

 

[Locutus]

I love you waldo.

he's afraid of you.

 

[petros]

With my wang, I would be too but I still want him to mother several sphincter babies for me regardless of fear.

 

[Zipperfish]

Well zipper, are you going to explain where the 97 percent comes from or are you just going to dance like Waldo does.

Why should I explain?--The paper is readily available on the interwebs and you can decide for yourself.

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/pdf/1748-9326_8_2_024024.pdf

I'm not particualrly married to the 97% as the study was conducted by what I consider to be an advocacy group (skeptical science). That said, I'm a scientist and I work and play with other technical people and it's quite rare to run into "deniers" in that community. Most of them (like myself) argue about the potential degree and climate sensitivity.

 

[petros]

Like most of the denire "points" actually, but they do get good mileage out of them. Apparently we've been in a pause for the last 20 years. Oh, and all the numbers of fudged. So...you're saying the guys fudging the numbers have fudged a pause then? Or...?

:lol:

Hiatus. NASA isn't denying. Why would you?

 

[EagleSmack]

what hood are you an adult in? Perhaps Locutus can tell us! :mrgreen: You're probably the last person on this board to call out anyone's posting... hey lil' buddy! You know, your forevah "I don't have to support nuthin... I won't reinvent the wheel for you... it's all been said in previous CC threads/posts, so I have no onus on me to substantiate anything!"

 

[Zipperfish]

Hiatus. NASA isn't denying. Why would you?

Hiatus. NASA isn't denying. Why would you?

I'm not denying the hiatus.

I suspect this is a climate version of LeChatelier's principle where negative feedbacks attempt to maintain homeostasis. Under continued forcing, I suspect we'll reach a bifurcation at whihc point the climate sensitivty will increase markedly over a short time. That's my guess.

So what's your explanation of the hiatus, if NASA is fudging the numbers? Why would they fudge a hiatus?

 

[petros]

So what's your explanation of the hiatus, if NASA is fudging the numbers? Why would they fudge a hiatus?

Are you okay? Maybe you need to light some sandalwood, rake some sand, grab some pork buns from newtown bakery on Powell and think about things?

It's pretty evident we don't live in a jar when 2/3 of a pending "run away greenhouse effect of horrendous doom led by Satan and his bifurcated tailed battalion of bastards" vanishes into thin air....UNLESS you move goal posts from surface warming to include the entire atmosphere and oceans at depth beyond surface as previously defined.

Burning money from Jewish the bank of hell won't help either.

 

[Zipperfish]

Are you okay? Maybe you need to light something sandalwood, rake some sand, grab some pork buns from newtown bakery on Powell and think about things?

It's pretty evident we don't live in a jar when 2/3 of a pending "run away greenhouse effect of horrendous doom led by Satan and his bifurcated tailed battalion of bastards" vanishes into thin air....UNLESS you move goal posts from surface warming to include the entire atmosphere and oceans at depth beyond surface as previously defined.

Burning money from Jewish the bank of hell won't help either.

There is a hiatus on temperature, not heat. I don't think I said there would be a runaway greenhouse effect. And the theory I was proposing is a prettty common response of complex systems.

I don't even understand this constant "live in a jar" thing you are going on about.

 

[petros]

There is a hiatus on temperature, not heat. I don't think I said there would be a runaway greenhouse effect. And the theory I was proposing is a prettty common response of complex systems.

I don't even understand this constant "live in a jar" thing you are going on about.

There is a hiatus on the rate of warming. 2/3 poof. Gone. You know exactly what the jar reference is, don't bullsh-t unless that is what you and your "faithful" scientist buddies "believe" is okay to do then it's f-cking groovy man and all copacetic to the new ave religion.

 

[waldo]

I'm not denying the hiatus.

these deniers are just soooo funny! In that regard, deniers purposely focus on surface temperature to the absolute exclusion of ocean warming. Go figure!

The slowdown in the rate of surface temperature warming is well understood; however, uncertainty exists as to the actual degree of that rate slowdown, particularly in regard to the inadequate inclusion of complete station coverage data from the warmest parts of the globe, particularly the Arctic.

 

[Zipperfish]

There is a hiatus on the rate of warming. 2/3 poof. Gone. You know exactly what the jar reference is, don't bullsh-t unless that is what you and your "faithful" scientist buddies "believe" is okay to do then it's f-cking groovy man and all copacetic to the new ave religion.

It doesn't take much faith to believe in the Greenhouse Effect. For instance, if someone tells me they don't believe in teh Greenhouse Effect, then I ask them why teh night side of the planet doesn't freeze when not exposed to the sun. Like I asked you. never did get an answer. So whatever you believe, clearly there is a major whole in your theory.

Also the sectrogram of outgoing radiation compared incoming radiation is consistent wiht the chemcial make up of teh atmopshere and the grey-body properteis of teh earth. Also we rely on spectral physics to reveal to us the chemical make-up of teh atmospheres of other planets which has been remarkably consistent with experimental data on, for example, Mars.

And let'e be claer about your position that tehre is no such thing as the Greenhouse Effect--that puts you in wingnut territory. They won't even let guy like you post at WUWT and Roy Spencer's website.

 

[petros]

There is no greenhouse effect . What teh f-ck?

 

[waldo]

And let'e be claer about your position that there is no such thing as the Greenhouse Effect--that puts you in wingnut territory. They won't even let guy like you post at WUWT and Roy Spencer's website.

actually.... as only the fringe of the fringe question the Greenhouse Effect, Tony Willard Watts, was pressured into withdrawing the WTFIUWT keys to some of the more prolific nutters who deny the Greenhouse Effect. However... Tony Willard Watts has some months back loosened his "standards" to allow one of the more nutty-nutters, Sky Dragon "Tim Ball", back into his flock of guest writers!

of course, "Tim Ball" has been one of member Walter's regular go-to guys... and it's most fitting that this thread's OP actually has ole Walter drawing on this "esteemed" denier of the Greenhouse Effect.

 

[Zipperfish]

actually.... as only the fringe of the fringe question the Greenhouse Effect, Tony Willard Watts, was pressured into withdrawing the WTFIUWT keys to some of the more prolific nutters who deny the Greenhouse Effect. However... Tony Willard Watts has some months back loosened his "standards" to allow one of the more nutty-nutters, Sky Dragon "Tim Ball", back into his flock of guest writers!

of course, "Tim Ball" has been one of member Walter's regular go-to guys... and it's most fitting that this thread's OP actually has ole Walter drawing on this "esteemed" denier of the Greenhouse Effect.

Ah, the good ol' "back radiation" crowd.

 

[gerryh]

Why should I explain?--The paper is readily available on the interwebs and you can decide for yourself.

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/pdf/1748-9326_8_2_024024.pdf

I'm not particualrly married to the 97% as the study was conducted by what I consider to be an advocacy group (skeptical science). That said, I'm a scientist and I work and play with other technical people and it's quite rare to run into "deniers" in that community. Most of them (like myself) argue about the potential degree and climate sensitivity.

See, this was all I asked for. Where you got the 97% from. The statement you made, and waldo has made, and I have heard from many others is that 97% of the worlds scientist agree with AGW. 97% of the world scientists. Now, you must agree that that statement is ingenuous at the least. The paper does not state that. Does it.




Surveys of climate scientists have found strong agreement (97–98%) regarding AGW amongst publishing climate experts


Now the following is where Petros get's his balls all tied in a knot over




We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.




So, what we have is that the "Abstracts" (papers) expressing a position 97% of "those" endorse the consensus of AGW. Doesn't say individual Scientists, and it definitely doesn't refer to that percentage being the percentage of "world" scientists endorsing AGW.


That being said, that is still a whole shyte load of scientific minds endorsing AGW compared to those that deny AGW considering the majority are unwilling to stick their collective necks out and take a stand one way or the other.


I thank you for being man enough to supply what I asked for and not do the waldo waltz.